State Responsibility Versus Nanny State

[AlphonseCapone]

There was a report published by Cancer Research that found 40% of cancers in Scotland were preventable, with smoking, obesity and drinking being the leading factors. 

 

There have been a lot of interventions with smoking; increased age restriction, plain packaging and smoking ban. 

 

Now we have minimum pricing and the sugar tax. Minimum pricing is back by the medical profession and the sugar tax has already been classed as a success as most companies have already created new recipes with less sugar. 

 

There are calls for a whole range of new initiatives including banning deals on junk food. 

 

So my question is, and I am torn, what is the line been the Government responsibly helping citizens and overstepping? 

 

I see two broad arguments; 

 

1) The Government has a responsibility to look after the health of its people and should take reasonable measures to di so. 

 

2) We are free adults who have the choice of what we do and should not be punished by paying more because others have less self-control. 

 

Over to you JKB.... 

[John Findlay]

7 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

There was a report published by Cancer Research that found 40% of cancers in Scotland were preventable, with smoking, obesity and drinking being the leading factors. 

 

There have been a lot of interventions with smoking; increased age restriction, plain packaging and smoking ban. 

 

Now we have minimum pricing and the sugar tax. Minimum pricing is back by the medical profession and the sugar tax has already been classed as a success as most companies have already created new recipes with less sugar. 

 

There are calls for a whole range of new initiatives including banning deals on junk food. 

 

So my question is, and I am torn, what is the line been the Government responsibly helping citizens and overstepping? 

 

I see two broad arguments; 

 

1) The Government has a responsibility to look after the health of its people and should take reasonable measures to di so. 

 

2) We are free adults who have the choice of what we do and should not be punished by paying more because others have less self-control. 

 

Over to you JKB.... 

Good can of worms to open. I will just go with the advice my dad gave me years ago. Everything in moderation.

[Craig_]

16 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

There was a report published by Cancer Research that found 40% of cancers in Scotland were preventable, with smoking, obesity and drinking being the leading factors. 

 

There have been a lot of interventions with smoking; increased age restriction, plain packaging and smoking ban. 

 

Now we have minimum pricing and the sugar tax. Minimum pricing is back by the medical profession and the sugar tax has already been classed as a success as most companies have already created new recipes with less sugar. 

 

There are calls for a whole range of new initiatives including banning deals on junk food. 

 

So my question is, and I am torn, what is the line been the Government responsibly helping citizens and overstepping? 

 

I see two broad arguments; 

 

1) The Government has a responsibility to look after the health of its people and should take reasonable measures to di so. 

 

2) We are free adults who have the choice of what we do and should not be punished by paying more because others have less self-control. 

 

Over to you JKB.... 

 

I guess you could flip your second question round, and ask how much medical treatment should we realistically expect if our poor health is caused by our own lifestyle choices?

[AlphonseCapone]

42 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Good can of worms to open. I will just go with the advice my dad gave me years ago. Everything in moderation.

 

I think out of all the advice and diets out there that your dad's is the best. It's simple and strikes the balance between enjoying yourself and being good to yourself. 

 

But unfortunately some folk aren't capable of moderation and it's more those folk I'm thinking of. 

 

For example, if you drink 2 litres of Irn-bru every day because you're addicted to sugar, and I drink one can per week, does the Government have a duty to influence the sugar count to help you over the quality of the taste for me?

 

Or is reducing sugar such a healthy cause that it should be done irregardless. 

[John Findlay]

3 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

I think out of all the advice and diets out there that your dad's is the best. It's simple and strikes the balance between enjoying yourself and being good to yourself. 

 

But unfortunately some folk aren't capable of moderation and it's more those folk I'm thinking of. 

 

For example, if you drink 2 litres of Irn-bru every day because you're addicted to sugar, and I drink one can per week, does the Government have a duty to influence the sugar count to help you over the quality of the taste for me?

 

Or is reducing sugar such a healthy cause that it should be done irregardless. 

There is so much I could say here but, I would probably cause the biggest thread stushie in JKB history.

[AlphonseCapone]

41 minutes ago, Craig_ said:

 

I guess you could flip your second question round, and ask how much medical treatment should we realistically expect if our poor health is caused by our own lifestyle choices?

 

That's definitely a huge factor in all of this. There have already been calls to refuse NHS treatment if the disease or illness is down to someone's obesity. 

 

Then there are folk like George Best. Should an alcoholic get a new liver or should they be reserved for people who have liver issues not of there making? He got two I'm sure, that's an even bigger debate. But on the flip side, alcoholism itself is considered a disease whereas obesity isn't in general though there are some diseasea that don't help. 

 

You could argue I guess the Government are ultimately helping the NHS and its funding by implementing these behaviour changing initiatives. 

[JamboX2]

1 hour ago, AlphonseCapone said:

There was a report published by Cancer Research that found 40% of cancers in Scotland were preventable, with smoking, obesity and drinking being the leading factors. 

 

There have been a lot of interventions with smoking; increased age restriction, plain packaging and smoking ban. 

 

Now we have minimum pricing and the sugar tax. Minimum pricing is back by the medical profession and the sugar tax has already been classed as a success as most companies have already created new recipes with less sugar. 

 

There are calls for a whole range of new initiatives including banning deals on junk food. 

 

So my question is, and I am torn, what is the line been the Government responsibly helping citizens and overstepping? 

 

I see two broad arguments; 

 

1) The Government has a responsibility to look after the health of its people and should take reasonable measures to di so. 

 

2) We are free adults who have the choice of what we do and should not be punished by paying more because others have less self-control. 

 

Over to you JKB.... 

 

I think if you walk down this road you can end up going too far. Do we eventually have brown bottles labled "GIN", "WHISKY", "WHITE WINE" etc? Or do we have McDonald's reducing their portion size?

 

The things we should be focusing on is to equalize the playing field. So rather than banning junk foods we should be pushing retailers to provide more deals on fruit and veg. Pushing down the price of healthier drinks in shops. Making it easier to afford healthier foods which all too often are higher in price.

 

This may mean government involvement in negotiating fair prices between suppliers and retailers - subsidy to cover losses to suppliers perhaps.

 

I'd totally end ads targeted at kids for foods and juices. 

 

Planning laws should be reviewed to limit the saturation of take aways, fast food stores and off licences though. Research shows that these types of stores are over represented in poorer communities. That means Councillors making calls that may upset some businesses. But poverty charities consistently report there being more unhealthy options in poorer areas offering an affordable alternative to healthier eating habits to those people. Accordingly these areas are also showing poorer health outcomes.

 

Again - as with gambling - I'd like to see Councils try and reduce the numbers through licencing effectively. If there's a McDonald's on Gorgie Road and KFC want to move in on Robertson Avenue should that be allowed? I'd argue no. Same goes for streets where you can have a ladbrokes, scotbet, coral and william hill in a row.

 

Before we start limiting the peoples choices through their pockets - perhaps we should try and use the other tools open to us first.

 

My fear is these health initiatives - sugar tax and minimum pricing - hit poorer people in the pocket rather than solving the issue first.

 

Another one to me is to emulate the Liberal and Labour councils of the 1920s and 1950s: offer free at the point of use - or very low priced - recreational facilities. Rather than selling pitches, expand them. Instead of high gym and leisure facility prices, cut them. No new housing estates without parks, pitches, a pool etc. 

 

I'm very much a build it and they'll come person. Reckon it'd work.

[AlphonseCapone]

1 minute ago, John Findlay said:

There is so much I could say here but, I would probably cause the biggest thread stushie in JKB history.

 

Go for it John, I think it's a really interesting topic. Complex on so many levels. 

[JamboX2]

1 minute ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

That's definitely a huge factor in all of this. There have already been calls to refuse NHS treatment if the disease or illness is down to someone's obesity. 

 

Then there are folk like George Best. Should an alcoholic get a new liver or should they be reserved for people who have liver issues not of there making? He got two I'm sure, that's an even bigger debate. But on the flip side, alcoholism itself is considered a disease whereas obesity isn't in general though there are some diseasea that don't help. 

 

You could argue I guess the Government are ultimately helping the NHS and its funding by implementing these behaviour changing initiatives. 

 

I think if you do this then you're effectively valuing some lives over others and that just cannot be allowed with an objective service such as the NHS.

 

It's a slippery slope and could lead to the deserving/undeserving poor type stuff.

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

People should be made to be more responsible. Maybe treatment should be refused until certain criteria are met?

 

I have no problem with junk food, energy drinks, etc being taxed heavily. 

[AlphonseCapone]

17 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

I think if you walk down this road you can end up going too far. Do we eventually have brown bottles labled "GIN", "WHISKY", "WHITE WINE" etc? Or do we have McDonald's reducing their portion size?

 

The things we should be focusing on is to equalize the playing field. So rather than banning junk foods we should be pushing retailers to provide more deals on fruit and veg. Pushing down the price of healthier drinks in shops. Making it easier to afford healthier foods which all too often are higher in price.

 

This may mean government involvement in negotiating fair prices between suppliers and retailers - subsidy to cover losses to suppliers perhaps.

 

I'd totally end ads targeted at kids for foods and juices. 

 

Planning laws should be reviewed to limit the saturation of take aways, fast food stores and off licences though. Research shows that these types of stores are over represented in poorer communities. That means Councillors making calls that may upset some businesses. But poverty charities consistently report there being more unhealthy options in poorer areas offering an affordable alternative to healthier eating habits to those people. Accordingly these areas are also showing poorer health outcomes.

 

Again - as with gambling - I'd like to see Councils try and reduce the numbers through licencing effectively. If there's a McDonald's on Gorgie Road and KFC want to move in on Robertson Avenue should that be allowed? I'd argue no. Same goes for streets where you can have a ladbrokes, scotbet, coral and william hill in a row.

 

Before we start limiting the peoples choices through their pockets - perhaps we should try and use the other tools open to us first.

 

My fear is these health initiatives - sugar tax and minimum pricing - hit poorer people in the pocket rather than solving the issue first.

 

Another one to me is to emulate the Liberal and Labour councils of the 1920s and 1950s: offer free at the point of use - or very low priced - recreational facilities. Rather than selling pitches, expand them. Instead of high gym and leisure facility prices, cut them. No new housing estates without parks, pitches, a pool etc. 

 

I'm very much a build it and they'll come person. Reckon it'd work.

 

Good post.

 

I think the first bolded part in particular is a big thing. There are probably a lot of people out there that would like to eat that bit healthier but have to balance that with financial reality. Even a simple example; a pack of mince, 20% fat is much cheaper than 5%, of course that's down to what they'll say is the various quality of each but in that situation, someone struggling with money is automatically disadvantaged. It also reminds me of the male BBC presenters who've agreed to cut their salary to make it equal to their female counterpart, when that sort of misses the point, why aren't the female salaries being lifted. Promote the positive rather than restrict the negative.

 

The second bolded point is much harder. I get the point that some areas seem to be filled with takeaways, pubs and bookies compared to others but it's maybe a bit too dangerous to tell KFC they can't open because McDonald's is nearby. What about people's right to choice? Maybe more a limit to no more than X number of each type of establishment within a certain radius.

 

I definitely agree around increasing recreational facilities but also increasing exposure to new recreations at school so folk are more likely to take them up.

 

[AlphonseCapone]

3 minutes ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

People should be made to be more responsible. Maybe treatment should be refused until certain criteria are met?

 

Got any examples of what you'd be thinking? Like have to be below a certain weight before treatment etc sort of thing?

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

1 minute ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Got any examples of what you'd be thinking? Like have to be below a certain weight before treatment etc sort of thing?

Sorry, just edited. 

 

But, I know surgeons hate operating on obese people, due to the layers of fat they need to cut through. Patients should be made to reach a more normal weight first. 

 

In my edit, I have no problem with junk food, energy drinks, etc being taxed in the same way as tobacco and alcohol. 

 

Further, I would stop supermarkets, off licences, etc selling alcohol. I think in Canada they are sold via government owned shops (I may be making this up?). 

[King prawn]

Thought provoking OP - really complex issue that raises more questions the more you try and answer it.

 

Would anyone agree that it's the government's job to provide education for its citizens and that a lack of education until recently is perhaps a reason for the things cited as health damaging? 

 

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

3 minutes ago, King prawn said:

Would anyone agree that it's the government's job to provide education for its citizens and that a lack of education until recently is perhaps a reason for the things cited as health damaging? 

 

Parents should take most of the responsibility. 

[King prawn]

1 minute ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

Parents should take most of the responsibility. 

 

And if the parents aren't clued up? 

 

Is it their child's fault Mum and Dad think McDonalds is good excuse for a meal 2-3 times a week? 

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, AlphonseCapone said:

There was a report published by Cancer Research that found 40% of cancers in Scotland were preventable, with smoking, obesity and drinking being the leading factors. 

 

There have been a lot of interventions with smoking; increased age restriction, plain packaging and smoking ban. 

 

Now we have minimum pricing and the sugar tax. Minimum pricing is back by the medical profession and the sugar tax has already been classed as a success as most companies have already created new recipes with less sugar. 

 

There are calls for a whole range of new initiatives including banning deals on junk food. 

 

So my question is, and I am torn, what is the line been the Government responsibly helping citizens and overstepping? 

 

I see two broad arguments; 

 

1) The Government has a responsibility to look after the health of its people and should take reasonable measures to di so. 

 

2) We are free adults who have the choice of what we do and should not be punished by paying more because others have less self-control. 

 

Over to you JKB.... 

For me it's always simple - a government is there to help us, not herd us.

 

It's a relatively easy step to bump up the price of things you don't want people to buy, but in truth what does raising the cost of a unit of alcohol really do to prevent another generation of heavy binge drinkers? I don't claim to have the answers but moves like this do nothing to tackle the cause of the problem.

 

I firmly believe the SNP in particular are well intentioned but I don't believe governments should act in this authoritarian way, I'm an adult and I don't appreciate my choices being artificially shaped like this.

 

Educate me, persuade me, help me - don't ******** control me

[deesidejambo]

I’m 100% accountable for what I put in my own mouth and nobody else is.   I’ll take the consequences and I’ll make my own decisions.

 

Nanny State can become social engineering.

 

People can become sheeple as they rely on the Govt to make their decisions for them.

 

And Health Nazis smugly eating their ooh so healthy scrummy muesli can G T F

[Homme]

The government and society have turned smokers into second class citizens. Now is the time to target the fatties.

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

47 minutes ago, King prawn said:

 

And if the parents aren't clued up? 

 

Is it their child's fault Mum and Dad think McDonalds is good excuse for a meal 2-3 times a week? 

They're not fit to be parents, then. 

[redjambo]

53 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

I’m 100% accountable for what I put in my own mouth and nobody else is.   I’ll take the consequences and I’ll make my own decisions.

 

Nanny State can become social engineering.

 

People can become sheeple as they rely on the Govt to make their decisions for them.

 

And Health Nazis smugly eating their ooh so healthy scrummy muesli can G T F

 

Just sitting down to my muesli now, with blueberries and soy milk. Yum!

[deesidejambo]

46 minutes ago, Homme said:

The government and society have turned smokers into second class citizens. Now is the time to target the fatties.

 

Indeed - now wheres that "study" that concluded 50% of people are overweight and 50% are underweight, i.e. nobody at all is "normal".

[John Findlay]

To me education is the answer. Both in the home and the state but, the state playingovernment a lesser part. However the flaw is the home education. The truth is whether people want to hear it or not is, that there are far to many parents out there who cannot be arsed to educate their children. They are just to lazy to do so. I will go further. There are people who shouldn't be allowed to have children. As they have no interest in bringing them up decently. Take no interest in their education, health or general well being. They firmly believe that is the state's job and I disagree wholeheartedly with this attitude. I have no time for people who keep making excuses for them. They are low income, they are poorly  educated(of their own doingame as they thought they were being smart not going to school) they've never stood a chance in life, etc etc blah blah. There are many who get everything done for them that they see it as the norm and therefore an entitlement and they just won't help themselves, why should they? Others will do it for them.

Give a person a fish and they can eat for a day. Give a person a fishing rod and they can eat every day. Sadly there are to many nowadays who will keep giving a fish and truly believe they are helping.

[deesidejambo]

1 minute ago, redjambo said:

 

Just sitting down to my muesli now, with blueberries and soy milk. Yum!

 

 

You will be hungry in an hour.   Get some Lorne sausage down ye.

[redjambo]

Just now, deesidejambo said:

 

You will be hungry in an hour.   Get some Lorne sausage down ye.

 

  I see that there's a new type of vegan Lorne sausage that's made from fair-traded textured vegetable protein with added vitamin D. Will that do?

[deesidejambo]

1 minute ago, redjambo said:

 

  I see that there's a new type of vegan Lorne sausage that's made from fair-traded textured vegetable protein with added vitamin D. Will that do?

Only drawback is it tastes like dogshit.      But if it’s scrummy go for it and tell everyone on Facebook how oh so healthy it is.

 

And don’t forget to put scrummy brown sauce on it. Not red.  Red sauce is evil.

[Adam Murray]

Education and a bit self restraint and personal responsibility are the key.

Everybody wants everything in an instant these day's, and if they don't get it, they're looking for someone else to blame.

This notion that the world owes everyone a living is a crock of crap, you get out of life what you put into it, and you are what you eat!

 

Who remembers Jamie Oliver (like him or loathe him), trying to introduce healthy meals into school dinners, and parents sneaking Mcdonalds, etc through the railings of the school gates, for their 'under-fed' kids.

[redjambo]

2 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

Only drawback is it tastes like dogshit.      But if it’s scrummy go for it and tell everyone on Facebook how oh so healthy it is.

 

And don’t forget to put scrummy brown sauce on it. Not red.  Red sauce is evil.

 

You're now nominated as my JKB lifestyle guru (a non-paid position, sorry). I'll just ask you what I should do when faced with those awful angst-ridden health and lifestyle choices that I'm regularly faced with, and then do the opposite. Apart from the brown sauce of course, you're quite right, tasty as heck!

[Boris]

1 hour ago, Lord BJ said:

 

I think more education around things would help massively in changing behaviours. 

 

 

I'd agree here.  Compulsorary food and nutrition education.

 

I'd also provide free, nutritional school meals.

 

It's a long term approach, but if the next generation, and then the next are better prepared, understand a balanced diet, and have skills in cooking, then no reason why the population can't eat healthier.

 

Is it also perhaps partly caused by our "instant" culture at the moment?  People too lazy to bother actual cooking, rather than putting a ready meal in the oven for 20 mins?

[Boris]

4 minutes ago, Adam Murray said:

Education and a bit self restraint and personal responsibility are the key.

Everybody wants everything in an instant these day's, and if they don't get it, they're looking for someone else to blame.

This notion that the world owes everyone a living is a crock of crap, you get out of life what you put into it, and you are what you eat!

 

Who remembers Jamie Oliver (like him or loathe him), trying to introduce healthy meals into school dinners, and parents sneaking Mcdonalds, etc through the railings of the school gates, for their 'under-fed' kids.

 

Agree!

[Sraman]

So cancer research have exhausted the smoking thing and have now moved onto, wait for it, people who eat and drink. Yes folks if you eat or drink you better give us all your cash as there is no escape from the Big C for you.

 

I don't like Cancer Research's methods but at least I can get my own back now by looking down my nose at people sitting in restaurants whilst tutting loudly and pulling my kids away from anyone taking a slug out a bottle. 

 

Life is short, you only get one shot at it, do whatever makes you happy.

[FWJ]

Double the price of confectionery and put the money towards NHS dentistry and dental education.  People might then see sweets as an occasional treat and not an everyday (or every meal) norm.

Supermarkets in this country are a real eyeopener  - aisles and aisles of sweets and chocolates.  And they’re everywhere.  DIY shops with chocolate bars for sale at the checkout?  What the ****?

 

I’m very ‘nanny state’ paternalistic because if we don’t look after ourselves we go running to, and expect, the state to look after us.  

 

[AlphonseCapone]

3 hours ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

Sorry, just edited. 

 

But, I know surgeons hate operating on obese people, due to the layers of fat they need to cut through. Patients should be made to reach a more normal weight first. 

 

In my edit, I have no problem with junk food, energy drinks, etc being taxed in the same way as tobacco and alcohol. 

 

Further, I would stop supermarkets, off licences, etc selling alcohol. I think in Canada they are sold via government owned shops (I may be making this up?). 

 

Looks like there are some Government owned shops that sell alcohol in Canada but also private, and it varies by state.

 

They do have a form of minimum unit pricing apparently.

[luckydug]

This probably seems a bit draconian but I feel it would be a good idea to refuse to allow children out of school for break time and lunch time.

They should either take healthy packed lunches or healthy meals from the school canteen.

Anyone passing a shopping area when the schools are out will see what I am on about. The junk that these kids are stuffing into their faces is asking for health problems in the future.

[King prawn]

2 hours ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

They're not fit to be parents, then. 

 

I'd agree they probably aren't but unfortunately they are and I don't think children, especially young ones, should have to suffer because they've got pants parents.

[doctor jambo]

In a world where health education does not work- it has no impact

and where we should NOT be rationing health care, or deciding who should/ should not get it

 

then you are left with how to pay for the treatment of those who are paying the price of their lifestyle

 

I'd ramp up the prices of snacks, takeaway meals, junk food, booze, legalise ALL drugs and sell and tax them, jack up tax on gambling

 

and ring fence the dosh raised to NOT only provide better health care, but also social care as many end up in nursing homes etc due to  vascular dementia, strokes and so on

 

Those who do things in moderation will not pay much- as they don't consume much

Those who do a lot will pay a lot- its their insurance policy for when it all catches up with them

 

[Paolo]

5 hours ago, John Findlay said:

Good can of worms to open. I will just go with the advice my dad gave me years ago. Everything in moderation.

Correct. No such thing as bad food or drink.   There is such a thing as too much of the same type of food and drink, but people need to be responsible for themselves. 

[Captain Sausage]

Really interesting topic and lots of good debate. 

 

Its to a bit of a rabbit hole to go down with regards to rationing health care. Should runners pay for replacement hips etc? Do certain conditions prevent you access to certain procedures? It’s a very emotive and subjective subject. 

 

My opinion is that healthy eating education is not working. There is so much information out there regarding healthy eating but so many people are just lazy *******s who can’t be bothered chopping up some veg and meat and mixing in a sauce. A microwave meal or takeaway is far easier. 

 

Where do I think we will end up? Has to be a private healthcare system with insurance premiums calculated on your health and lifestyle. It’s definitely not a popular thing, but an ageing and heavier population is going to take its toll sooner rather than later. It’ll take a very strong (and unpopular) government to make that decision, but I can only hope it’s made prior to this hr NHS sinking the whole economy. 

 

Edit: I’d also state that I don’t think taxing sweets and fatty foods will make much difference (I hope I’m wrong, very open to being proved so) and it needs something more drastic to change people’s lifestyles. 

[Sharpie]

I look back many years and as a cancer survivor of 12 years I realise what was to blame was me. I worked shifts for many years in Edinburgh I carried sandwiches, but on aftyernoon shift, fish and chips, pie and chips, or white pudding and chips were the meal of the day. I was also quite welcoming when not working to a few pint of heavy, and a couple of nips.

 

On coming to Canada I started smoking, I found hamburgers, really big ones, I enjoyed my beer still,  and had basically a liking for anything they said was not good for you.

 

In 2006 I was diagnosed with colon cancer, of course I shouted why me, this is unfair I am one of the good guys, in fact I think what happened was my colon got annoyed and said you put all this shit in me and its my job to get rid of it, and I am fed up of this and I will show you.

 

The experience taught me a few lesssons,  have some respect for your body, eat healthy, drink in moderation, in life moderation in all things is really fairly wise. Yes illness will happen lots of non drinking healthy eating people get cancer,  but the responsibility is that of the individual, I am not sure it can be legislated.

 

Its a long time since I used the NHS, but I can say here the health system takes its knocks, but from my GP, through the surgeon to the radiologists. oncologists and nurses I was treated like royalty, and all at a cost of my monthly donations. I was provided radiation, chemo, and medications at no cost, and treated well. I am a very grateful individual.

[luckydug]

20 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

In a world where health education does not work- it has no impact

and where we should NOT be rationing health care, or deciding who should/ should not get it

 

then you are left with how to pay for the treatment of those who are paying the price of their lifestyle

 

I'd ramp up the prices of snacks, takeaway meals, junk food, booze, legalise ALL drugs and sell and tax them, jack up tax on gambling

 

and ring fence the dosh raised to NOT only provide better health care, but also social care as many end up in nursing homes etc due to  vascular dementia, strokes and so on

 

Those who do things in moderation will not pay much- as they don't consume much

Those who do a lot will pay a lot- its their insurance policy for when it all catches up with them

 

Good commonsense Doc.

Look at how many folk have stopped smoking now that fags are about £9 a packet.

 

[redjambo]

28 minutes ago, luckydug said:

This probably seems a bit draconian but I feel it would be a good idea to refuse to allow children out of school for break time and lunch time.

They should either take healthy packed lunches or healthy meals from the school canteen.

Anyone passing a shopping area when the schools are out will see what I am on about. The junk that these kids are stuffing into their faces is asking for health problems in the future.

 

I seem to remember that, quite a few moons ago when I was in Singapore, they had a system where if a schoolkid went over a certain BMI then they had to go on a government-prescribed exercise programme.

 

Got it:

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6124732/ns/health-childrens_health/t/singapore-takes-strict-steps-against-obesity/

[Ministry]

32 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

In a world where health education does not work- it has no impact

and where we should NOT be rationing health care, or deciding who should/ should not get it

 

then you are left with how to pay for the treatment of those who are paying the price of their lifestyle

 

I'd ramp up the prices of snacks, takeaway meals, junk food, booze, legalise ALL drugs and sell and tax them, jack up tax on gambling

 

and ring fence the dosh raised to NOT only provide better health care, but also social care as many end up in nursing homes etc due to  vascular dementia, strokes and so on

 

Those who do things in moderation will not pay much- as they don't consume much

Those who do a lot will pay a lot- its their insurance policy for when it all catches up with them

 

Rather than increase tax on sweets and junk food to create an insurance policy. Why not just remove private medical insurance from Insurance Premium Tax and make private healthcare more affordable to the masses. 

[luckydug]

6 minutes ago, Ministry said:

Rather than increase tax on sweets and junk food to create an insurance policy. Why not just remove private medical insurance from Insurance Premium Tax and make private healthcare more affordable to the masses. 

Because the idea is to create a healthy population. Any savings to the NHS is a bonus.

Private healthcare is like any insurance policy it's fine until you actually start claiming.

Best to stick with the NHS and make the careless pay for their care and think about their lifestyle.

[Jamboelite]

3 hours ago, Sraman said:

So cancer research have exhausted the smoking thing and have now moved onto, wait for it, people who eat and drink. Yes folks if you eat or drink you better give us all your cash as there is no escape from the Big C for you.

 

I don't like Cancer Research's methods but at least I can get my own back now by looking down my nose at people sitting in restaurants whilst tutting loudly and pulling my kids away from anyone taking a slug out a bottle. 

 

Life is short, you only get one shot at it, do whatever makes you happy.

 

Except where what you are doing is causing a consequence to our already strained NHS in which case while you maybe paying your taxes it raises the question of when I feel treatment should be refused or how we create funds from the people who are using the system more, that could come from taxing the very things they are doing and taking the additional money for it but then im not sure how that works in practice.

 

Refusing health case is a really grey area while it would certainly make people think about moderation it is difficult to realistically implement when certain conditions have consequences and those could be misinterpreted as a lifestyle choice.

 

[Jamboelite]

32 minutes ago, luckydug said:

Because the idea is to create a healthy population. Any savings to the NHS is a bonus.

Private healthcare is like any insurance policy it's fine until you actually start claiming.

Best to stick with the NHS and make the careless pay for their care and think about their lifestyle.

I never get this mentality of an insurance policy is fine until you actually start claiming which infers the issue is on the insurer, its the lack of knowledge of people buying insurance and what they want to get out of it is the issue.

 

There is no problem getting a policy to fit your needs but you need to understand that comes at a cost however if you do it on the cheap and you realise it doesnt allow you to claim for something then who is to blame for that?

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

1 hour ago, King prawn said:

 

I'd agree they probably aren't but unfortunately they are and I don't think children, especially young ones, should have to suffer because they've got pants parents.

Unfortunately, bad parents tend to have their children removed from their care. I don't have a solution for this and wouldn't want to go down Hitler's route. 

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

1 hour ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Looks like there are some Government owned shops that sell alcohol in Canada but also private, and it varies by state.

 

They do have a form of minimum unit pricing apparently.

Norway has something similar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinmonopolet

[Mac_fae_Gillie]

Turned 50 recently and had 1st medical proper for long time..

High blood pressure

heart murmur

fairly high blood sugar level (means high risk of diabetes)

 

now I feel fine. so  many issues hit me hard,

I've quit work for 6months off(boss happy to take me back) to roll back a few years its an effort, 2x 50min walks + 30mins other fitness which will increase as weight drops.

Thrown frying pan out

3 fruit breakfasts a week/3 cereal/1 small quiche or scrambled eggs

5 portions of fruit/veg minimum

zero snacking except grapes/bananas

increase in water intake to reduce other fluids

3 low calorie meals a week as main meal other meals reduced portions compared to past

brown bread only..

Really hard getting use to blandness of low calorie meals few choices to be had and cost 20%-50% more 

The best thing I found though is "grapes" perfect snack as you can have just a few to tied you over instead of a full banana or apple etc..

 

Didn't take a nanny state to get me to change but it did take a kick up the arse from the medical.. 

[Ministry]

1 hour ago, luckydug said:

Because the idea is to create a healthy population. Any savings to the NHS is a bonus.

Private healthcare is like any insurance policy it's fine until you actually start claiming.

Best to stick with the NHS and make the careless pay for their care and think about their lifestyle.

Increasing tax on junk food is just another way to disproportionately penalise the poor through our tax system. Charging people an extra £1 for a Big Mac meal won't stop people eating them. If you genuinely want to change people's eating habits there needs to be a larger education piece around healthy eating.

 

The junk food tax has no intention of improving people's eating habits, it's just a way of trying to raise funds for the money black hole which is the NHS. 

 

Making private healthcare more affordable (by reducing tax) is a genuine way of trying to take some of the strain off the NHS. 

[IronJambo]

7 hours ago, Craig_ said:

 

I guess you could flip your second question round, and ask how much medical treatment should we realistically expect if our poor health is caused by our own lifestyle choices?

I can see some sense in this in extreme cases but in general the very notion irks me. It suggests that treatment on the NHS is free, which of course it isn't. Taking away something that somebody has paid into in a disguised form of compulsory insurance through their income is fundamentally wrong.